The Gunpowder Plot; Government Conspiracy or Terrorist Plot?

-Is there more to The Gunpowder Plot than meets the eye?

-Some historians believe that the whole plot was a government conspiracy to convince James I that the Catholics could not be trusted.

-They believe that Cecil arranged the whole thing in a bid to get James to ban Catholics altogether.

TASK: to sort the cards into two groups; “Government Conspiracy”, and “Terrorist Plot”

The government had a monopoly on gunpowder in this country and it was stored in places like the Tower of London. How did the conspirators get hold of 36 barrels of gunpowder without drawing attention to them? Did they get help from the government? / Moving the gunpowder from the Tower to Westminster could have been done over a number of days. This would have attracted less attention. This was dangerous but the conspirators were motivated men and it could have happened.
How was the gunpowder moved across London from the Tower of London to Westminster (at least two miles distant) without anyone seeing it? The River Thames would not have been used as it could have lead to the gunpowder becoming damp and useless. / Gunpowder may have been a government monopoly but just as today, there was a black market for it. The conspirators would have had the money to pay. In many ways, this would not have been a difficult problem.
James I’s chief minister, Robert Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury, hated Catholics and saw them as a constant source of trouble. He wanted to remove Catholicism from England as he saw it as a threat. Was he in a position to create a conspiracy? / The confession of Fawkes does not mention the government. He himself stated that he was first approached by Catholics in Europe about the plot in 1604.The only full confession about the plot makes no mention about being set-up.
James was terrified of a violent death; his childhood in Scotland had been fraught with danger including being kidnapped as a boy. What better way to get James to punish Catholics in England than to get him to believe that they had tried to kill him? / If Fawkes and company had been set-up by the government, why did he not say so at his execution when he could have said something? Possibly he was not in a fit enough state to say anything; also who would have believed him?
Why was the soldier who killed Catesby and Percy at Holbeech House in the Midlands, given such a large pension for life (10p a day for life) when their arrest and torture was more desirable so that the names of any other conspirators might be found out? / The soldier who shot Percy and Catesby was in a shootout in which he may have been shot and killed himself. Why risk your own life against such desperate people? Was the 10p a day for life merely a generous reward for services to a grateful king?
Why were men who were known to be Catholics allowed to rent out a house so near to the Houses of Parliament? How did they move 36 barrels from that house to the cellar of Parliament without anyone noticing? / The conspirators used false names so hiring out property near to the Houses of Parliament would not have been that difficult.
Francis Tresham was an important member of the gang. Once arrested, he was locked in a cell by himself. He was found to have been poisoned. How did he get the poison? Did he knowingly take it? Or did someone want to silence him before he talked? / Why, for the first time in history, was there a search of Parliament's cellars that conveniently found "John Johnson" (as Guy Fawkes called himself) before he lit the fuse?
It is possible that Tresham had the poison on him and took it rather than be hung, drawn and quartered. If someone else had access to him, and fed him poisoned food, he would have been a very important person as only the most important would have had access. Cecil?